Abstract
To the Editor. —Sulmasy et al 1 are to be applauded for attempting to demonstrate the usefulness of clinical ethics instruction. Unfortunately, while their intent is commendable, their findings do not meet the proposed objective or support the conclusion drawn. Their study has two main problems. First, the authors state that the study is a 1-year randomized, controlled trial. Calling the study controlled, however, presumes that the connection between the content of the instruction and the increase in concurrent care concerns (CCCs) is both causal and primary. The authors provide no justification for this presumption. Furthermore, other connections are possible. Attending regular meetings with fellow house officers and discussing (traditionally) nonmedical issues may create a comradeship that promotes open discussion of a wide range of issues. If so, it would be the kind of dialogue between house officers that leads to the increase in CCCs addressed; the clinical ethics instruction
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
